| Author |
Message |
mike morgan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:15 am
Post subject: normality |
|
|
Hello,
I would like to introduce a question, which is as important as it is
ignored. The question of being normal or rather the definition of normality.
Not long ago I was referred to as a patient in need of some medication to
make him well or normal. This reference was a sheer joke (hope so, Doc Lyle)
but nevertheless acted as a trigger for considering the importance and
meaning of normality.
Is there any definition of normality as far as human psyche is concerned? Do
any medical sources state clearly what being proper and exclusively right is
when it comes to behavioral theory? Doctor Franke? Doctor Lyle?
I myself live in a country, whose identity I'm not going to reveal, where I
constantly witness an explicit vision of abnormality and yet I happen to be
one of very few who disapprove of the status quo. The state is not normal
according to my judgment. But who am I to judge? I am only entitled to
having my own opinion.
If normality is something being most common in a particular area then most
definitely I am the one who is not normal. But there must be some superior
set of patterns that will show the true state of affairs and what normality
really is. Do you know such?
Thanks for your interest.
Mike from Poland (.oh, damn it!)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:19 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
mike morgan wrote:
| Quote: | Hello,
I would like to introduce a question, which is as important as it
is
ignored. The question of being normal or rather the definition of
normality. Not long ago I was referred to as a patient in need of
some medication to make him well or normal. This reference was a
sheer joke (hope so, Doc Lyle) but nevertheless acted as a trigger
for considering the importance and meaning of normality.
|
Oh dear! Please take me seriously only on a _very_ restricted range
of subjects (medicine is certainly not within that range). And even
then seek a second opinion with as much haste as is consistent with
dignity: the second opinion will almost certainly be right.
| Quote: | Is there any definition of normality as far as human psyche is
concerned? Do any medical sources state clearly what being proper
and
exclusively right is when it comes to behavioral theory? Doctor
Franke? Doctor Lyle?
|
I don't see how anybody could define normality with any kind of
precision. If you function reasonably efficiently, you're normal, I'd
say. You write a difficult foreign language impeccably, and can tell
when people are joking in it, so you must have an excellent ear and
study skills, high intelligence, and considerable social empathy. I
assume you look before crossing the road? Know how to stop yourself
insulting the boss and most of your colleagues? Avoid wearing
fifteenth-century clothing in public? Don't believe the man over the
road is planning to kill you?
You're normal. I wish I was.
Mike.
[...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:08 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
"mike morgan" <zazoo33@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:cmllfo$pbv$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
| Quote: | Is there any definition of normality as far as human psyche is concerned?
Do
any medical sources state clearly what being proper and exclusively right
is
when it comes to behavioral theory?
|
There are several definitions, each relative to its general
view of the psyche. Some such views are behavioral,
others not.
Psychology's general difficulty is that while it makes
claims to be a science like the natural sciences (physics
and chemistry) it still contains a variety of fundamental
paradigms that conflict with each other (e.g. behavioral
vs. Freudian vs. Jungian approaches to the psyche)
and the parent discipline of psychology has not yet
found any convincing way of reconciling these conflicts
or generally preferring preferring one paradigm over the others.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anzelm Kociubajka
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:23 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
User "mike morgan" <zazoo33@wp.pl> wrote
news:cmllfo$pbv$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...:
| Quote: | I myself live in a country, whose identity I'm not going to reveal, where
I
constantly witness an explicit vision of abnormality and yet I happen to
be
one of very few who disapprove of the status quo. The state is not normal
according to my judgment. But who am I to judge? I am only entitled to
having my own opinion.
|
Your opinion is important and you have the right to share it with other
people. Many Poles think the same about the state they are living in. Mayby
even the majority of them. There is nothing wrong with you or your judgment,
the country is screwed up - its institiutions are corrupted, the whole state
apparatus is not working properly. But why should one rely on the state and
not on the common sense? There still are virtues, hopes and a lot of work to
be done.
You prove to have - simply by revealing such doubts - a certain level of
sensitivity, moral virtue and clear mind. Stick to that and have no doubts
about yourself - that's the world who is to be blamed for schisofrenia in
what we see/hear and what we think/wish.
| Quote: | If normality is something being most common in a particular area then most
definitely I am the one who is not normal. But there must be some superior
set of patterns that will show the true state of affairs and what
normality
really is. Do you know such?
|
I think common sense is what one shoud refer to - not the occurence or
frequency of other peoples' deeds - too often they happen to be sheer
villains. Regardless of all the religious and philosophical ways of
explaining the world - no matter what (you think or you feel you should) you
believe or consider the most important - rely on your common sense.
| Quote: | Thanks for your interest.
Mike from Poland (.oh, damn it!)
|
Anzelm from Poland (not so bad, after all) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:00 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
mike morgan wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
[...]
| Quote: | I would like to introduce a question, which is as important as it
is
ignored. The question of being normal or rather the definition of
normality. Not long ago I was referred to as a patient in need of
some medication to make him well or normal. This reference was a
sheer joke (hope so, Doc Lyle) but nevertheless acted as a trigger
for considering the importance and meaning of normality.
Is there any definition of normality as far as human psyche is
concerned? Do any medical sources state clearly what being proper
and exclusively right is when it comes to behavioral theory?
Doctor Franke? Doctor Lyle?
I myself live in a country, whose identity I'm not going to
reveal, where I constantly witness an explicit vision of
abnormality and yet I happen to be one of very few who disapprove
of the status quo. The state is not normal according to my
judgment. But who am I to judge? I am only entitled to having my
own opinion.
If normality is something being most common in a particular area
then most definitely I am the one who is not normal. But there
must be some superior set of patterns that will show the true
state of affairs and what normality really is. Do you know such?
|
I fully concur with Dr Lyle's opinion.
I would add that "normal(ity)" includes a wide range of behaviors
considered either probably or acceptable or both within any given
culture, and it varies from culture to culture. It is both an
aesthetic, ethical, or ideal and a statistical standard, and many who
use or interpret the term confuse the two.
Medical science, for example, no longer feels comfortable describing
human beings participating in medical trials or other types of
experiments as, for example, "patients with cancer" and "normal
controls": the latter are now referred to as "healthy[1] controls".
On the other hand, I would suggest that it is decidedly not
statistically normal to separate paragraphs by three lines: a single
line is the standard for the non-indented format.
[1] "Healthy" and especially "unhealthy" are sometimes used as if they
were exact synonyms of "normal" and "abnormal", as in "He has an
unhealthy interest in sheep". But deep in the desert, it may be a
perfectly normal interest.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:50 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2v7791F2hpro5U2@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | mike morgan wrote:
I don't see how anybody could define normality with any kind of
precision. If you function reasonably efficiently, you're normal, I'd
say. You write a difficult foreign language impeccably, and can tell
when people are joking in it, so you must have an excellent ear and
study skills, high intelligence, and considerable social empathy. I
assume you look before crossing the road? Know how to stop yourself
insulting the boss and most of your colleagues? Avoid wearing
fifteenth-century clothing in public? Don't believe the man over the
road is planning to kill you?
You're normal. I wish I was.
|
Fascinating. Which of those things is your predilection, Mike? Not looking
before crossing the road? Insulting your boss? Oh I hope it's the
fifteenth-century clothing.
Come on, spill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:30 pm
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:50:33 -0600, "Jess Askin"
<nospam@dontbother.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2v7791F2hpro5U2@uni-berlin.de...
mike morgan wrote:
I don't see how anybody could define normality with any kind of
precision. If you function reasonably efficiently, you're normal, I'd
say. You write a difficult foreign language impeccably, and can tell
when people are joking in it, so you must have an excellent ear and
study skills, high intelligence, and considerable social empathy. I
assume you look before crossing the road? Know how to stop yourself
insulting the boss and most of your colleagues? Avoid wearing
fifteenth-century clothing in public? Don't believe the man over the
road is planning to kill you?
You're normal. I wish I was.
Fascinating. Which of those things is your predilection, Mike? Not looking
before crossing the road? Insulting your boss? Oh I hope it's the
fifteenth-century clothing.
Come on, spill.
Mile L may already be normal by his definition; let's hope so. Mike M |
seems quiet abnormal to me since, as Mike L says, he can write a
difficult foreign language impeccably, has an excellent ear, is of
high intelligence and has other admirable qualities. Surely, we can't
equate excellence with normality; that'd put a whole new spin on what
excellence means.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Fineman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:31 pm
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
"mike morgan" <zazoo33@wp.pl> writes:
| Quote: | Is there any definition of normality as far as human psyche is
concerned?
|
Plenty of them.
| Quote: | Do any medical sources state clearly what being proper and
exclusively right is when it comes to behavioral theory?
|
Plenty of them. But they disagree, and let us hope that they will
continue to do so & thereby help to remind us that they are
ridiculous.
Since Harvey, we have all known what the human heart is for: to pump
blood. Consequently, physicians can distinguish normal & abnormal
hearts according as they perform that office well or badly. If the
valves leak or the muscles contract in the wrong order, they are
entitled to give those conditions long ugly names & do what they can
about them.
In contrast, nobody knows what the human brain is for. Theologians
have said they knew, and physicians as well as politicians have
sometimes horned in on that prerogative; but they are all bluffing,
and most of them are bullying too.
The brain is not even properly one organ. It may be as many as a
thousand, connected together tightly or loosely, and forced to
cooperate, more or less, by the circumstance that they are operating
the same body. Very likely, in each of us, some dozens of those
little demons are absent or inactive on account of various hereditary
& environmental influences, so that neighboring or distant demons are
induced to come up with workarounds, some common & some not.
In dealing with such a system, the notion of normality makes no
sense.
--
--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net
||: The vast majority of humans have more than the average  |
||: number of legs. | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:05 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:31:30 GMT, Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | "mike morgan" <zazoo33@wp.pl> writes:
Is there any definition of normality as far as human psyche is
concerned?
Plenty of them.
Do any medical sources state clearly what being proper and
exclusively right is when it comes to behavioral theory?
Plenty of them. But they disagree, and let us hope that they will
continue to do so & thereby help to remind us that they are
ridiculous.
|
In the meantime, I will continue to consider "normal" to be defined
"as I am". As I grow older, and pick up strange habits like walking
around the house looking for the glasses that are pushed up on my
head, the definition follows my actions. And that is perfectly
normal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Ward
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:13 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:05:34 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | In the meantime, I will continue to consider "normal" to be defined
"as I am". As I grow older, and pick up strange habits like walking
around the house looking for the glasses that are pushed up on my
head, the definition follows my actions. And that is perfectly
normal.
|
.... until you can find it in the DSM IV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hagrinas Mivali
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:55 am
Post subject: Re: normality |
|
|
mike morgan wrote:
| Quote: | Hello,
I would like to introduce a question, which is as important as it is
ignored. The question of being normal or rather the definition of
normality. Not long ago I was referred to as a patient in need of
some medication to make him well or normal. This reference was a
sheer joke (hope so, Doc Lyle) but nevertheless acted as a trigger
for considering the importance and meaning of normality.
|
Some people feel that the term "abnormal" carries with it a stigma when it
comes to mental health. They may prefer "typical" or "neurologically
typical" instead of normal. These are equally vague synonyms, but there is
no stigma, at least for now.
It's a subjective term, but there are many perfectly useful subjective
terms. Next time, tell him that he's ugly instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in